PDA

View Full Version : Nondual Teachings of Christ


Mikaela Kurahla
29-07-2017, 01:38 AM
I just read a series of booklets on this topic and I found it resonating with me. I like a lot of what the gnostic gospels teach and this author tied other belief paths into his interpretations as well (Zen Buddhism for example). Anyway, if anyone is interested, it is a great topic to research. :) Blessed be.

youngnostic
30-07-2017, 04:01 AM
I like the Gospels of Thomas & Philip
They're both on Youtube.
Also feel free to check out: askrealjesus.com for more modern words of Christ.

Mikaela Kurahla
30-07-2017, 12:08 PM
I like the Gospels of Thomas & Philip
They're both on Youtube.
Also feel free to check out: askrealjesus.com for more modern words of Christ.

Thank you. :) I have requested the Gospel of Thomas from my library. I have read the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the Book of Enoch as well. Thanks for the links! I will definitely check them out.

Still_Waters
30-07-2017, 01:17 PM
Jesus' "Love your neighbor as yourself" is an awesome expression of non-duality if one dives deeply into what that statement really implies.

P.S. The Gospel of Thomas is one of my favorite Christian scriptures.

Nowayout
30-07-2017, 05:18 PM
What is love comes to my mind first? Love is universal, we all know what love is when we are touched by love.

Non-duality, does it include love?

Harden not your hearts Jesus would also say. Love expands the heart, what is in the heart that expands.

Mind, non-duality, and the heart. Are they one?

I'm in love with Jesus because his words and life truly revealed that he was love incarnate.

If non-duality awareness leads one away from this love of the Christ, which I believe it does not, then it's useless.

iamthat
30-07-2017, 10:07 PM
What is love comes to my mind first? Love is universal, we all know what love is when we are touched by love.

Non-duality, does it include love?

Harden not your hearts Jesus would also say. Love expands the heart, what is in the heart that expands.

Mind, non-duality, and the heart. Are they one?

I'm in love with Jesus because his words and life truly revealed that he was love incarnate.

If non-duality awareness leads one away from this love of the Christ, which I believe it does not, then it's useless.

Bhakti Yoga is the path of devotion. It may be devotion to an ideal or an individual. That individual may be represented by a photograph or something more symbolic such as a statue or the cross (for those devoted to the Christ).

Bhakti Yoga is primarily for those of a certain temperament, those whose emotional body naturally gravitates towards the path of idealism and devotion.

Bhakti Yoga is love characterised by separation - there is the devotee and the object of devotion, linked by the act of devotion.

Non-duality is love without the separation. This love simply allows all to be whatever it is. In non-duality there is no specific object of devotion, because all is seen as the Self. Some people may not even call this love, but there is an all-inclusive expansion of the heart to embrace all of creation, because we know that we are that and there is no separation between our Being and any part of creation.

Both Bhakti Yoga and Advaita (non-duality) also involve surrender. The Bhakti Yogi surrenders his or her will to the object of devotion to become an instrument of service. The Advaitist surrenders to the reality of what is, the reality of whatever arises in each moment, knowing that all is the Self.

So I would suggest that Advaita and Bhakti Yoga are different, but not necessarily contradictory.

Peace.

Nowayout
30-07-2017, 10:20 PM
Thanks for the thoughtful reply...

Peace and light.

Mikaela Kurahla
31-07-2017, 02:36 AM
What is love comes to my mind first? Love is universal, we all know what love is when we are touched by love.

Non-duality, does it include love?

Harden not your hearts Jesus would also say. Love expands the heart, what is in the heart that expands.

Mind, non-duality, and the heart. Are they one?

I'm in love with Jesus because his words and life truly revealed that he was love incarnate.

If non-duality awareness leads one away from this love of the Christ, which I believe it does not, then it's useless.

I can't speak for others, but in my personal experience, it brought me closer to experiencing the love of Christ in my life. :)

Iamit
31-07-2017, 11:33 PM
Devotion to Christ is no more or less connected to Oneness than anything else manifesting, including all that is disliked and opposed.

Nowayout
01-08-2017, 01:41 AM
I can't speak for others, but in my personal experience, it brought me closer to experiencing the love of Christ in my life. :)


I was born and raised a Christion so I had it feed to me from day one. I had great parents, we went to church every Sunday, my father was a good man and my mother outstanding too.

I still consider myself a Christian in a mystical way. Having faith in a living God that loves you can be very profound. I like the gnostic texts and Have read some also. They put a different spin on the life of Christ.

Anyway, these days I'm open to many possibilities, life is large.:smile: The Christ is remarkable no doubt. God incarnate if you buy into it. I'm in love with the cosmic Christ. The living Christ, the Christ of all compassion and love. The Buddha is right up there too...

Nowayout
01-08-2017, 01:54 AM
Devotion to Christ is no more or less connected to Oneness than anything else manifesting, including all that is disliked and opposed.

Well if oneness insists all manifesting is all just one reality I have my reservations. Perhaps God is outside of creation but also within it. Being out side and the source of creation and yet within it could be considered "oneness" but it's also questionable how that truly works?

If God could take you or me right out of the equation of life which Perhaps God can but my heart tells me would not, then we are participants in Gods splendor and glory. Hence the good Angels sing.

All the more reason to give thanks and devotion?

Mikaela Kurahla
01-08-2017, 05:26 AM
I was born and raised a Christion so I had it feed to me from day one. I had great parents, we went to church every Sunday, my father was a good man and my mother outstanding too.

I still consider myself a Christian in a mystical way. Having faith in a living God that loves you can be very profound. I like the gnostic texts and Have read some also. They put a different spin on the life of Christ.

Anyway, these days I'm open to many possibilities, life is large.:smile: The Christ is remarkable no doubt. God incarnate if you buy into it. I'm in love with the cosmic Christ. The living Christ, the Christ of all compassion and love. The Buddha is right up there too...

I definitely feel blessed to have found my own path. The Christ of all compassion and love is the Christ I know. :) I also love the teachings of Buddha. I grew to not be so concerned with labels and arguments and just focus on my own spiritual connection with "all that is" in my own experience. When I started following my heart and intuition I opened my mind to learning all kinds of possibilities. People of different views and beliefs were always landing right in front of me and I would listen to them if I felt they were coming from a loving and non judgmental place. There is so much magic and wonder in life that I just couldn't find wrapped in "one little religion's box". I'm not discounting any religion, of course. Everyone has their own pathway to the Divine and their own spiritual way of thinking and living. I prefer the possibilities, as you said. I truly believe if more worked together instead of against each other we'd have more understanding in the world. I hold hope to the possibility of that. :)

Thanks for sharing your background :)

Nowayout
02-08-2017, 02:35 AM
Yes, that's the way I flow with spirituality these days.

I think if a person is truly spiritual then they must also be a mystic. Because it's beyond us, within us, and not simply answered in books and dogmas.

However, there is wisdom there....:wink:

Shivani Devi
02-08-2017, 07:37 AM
My favourite quote from The Bible:

"Before Abraham was, I AM" - cannot get any more non-dual than that.

Mikaela Kurahla
02-08-2017, 11:24 AM
Yes, that's the way I flow with spirituality these days.

I think if a person is truly spiritual then they must also be a mystic. Because it's beyond us, within us, and not simply answered in books and dogmas.

However, there is wisdom there....:wink:

for, sure :)

Mikaela Kurahla
02-08-2017, 11:25 AM
My favourite quote from The Bible:

"Before Abraham was, I AM" - cannot get any more non-dual than that.

Yesss :) That's awesome. :)

Nowayout
03-08-2017, 02:48 AM
Before "I am" there is nothing because God is truly the one source.

The burning question is...have we God given souls?

Iamit
03-08-2017, 05:32 AM
Well if oneness insists all manifesting is all just one reality I have my reservations. Perhaps God is outside of creation but also within it. Being out side and the source of creation and yet within it could be considered "oneness" but it's also questionable how that truly works?

If God could take you or me right out of the equation of life which Perhaps God can but my heart tells me would not, then we are participants in Gods splendor and glory. Hence the good Angels sing.

All the more reason to give thanks and devotion?

The nondual point being made is that there are no such reservations or exceptions to Oneness being all there is.

Devotion to Christ whilst excluding what you dont like in the manifestation would be a contradiction in terms.

Jyotir
03-08-2017, 02:16 PM
Perhaps God is outside of creation but also within it. Being out side and the source of creation and yet within it could be considered "oneness" but it's also questionable how that truly works?


Hi Nowayout,

Just a quick comment by way of definition:

What you describe in your above quoted is usually referred to as:
'qualified non-dualism'.

And btw, regardless of religious tradition and including most of the major ones,
that particular orientation is held by an overwhelming majority of people at the present time.

~ J

Shivani Devi
03-08-2017, 02:22 PM
Also, if anybody would like to understand 'qualified non-dualism/monism' or what we call Vishishtadvaita or Acintya Bheda-Abheda Tattwa, just ask and I'll be all too happy to go there. =)

Nowayout
04-08-2017, 03:56 AM
The nondual point being made is that there are no such reservations or exceptions to Oneness being all there is.

Devotion to Christ whilst excluding what you dont like in the manifestation would be a contradiction in terms.

What I don't like is shadowy, The Christ still remains "perfected in love" transcending our personal rational lights..

Nonduality is pointing towards personal lights?

Nowayout
04-08-2017, 04:01 AM
Hi Nowayout,

Just a quick comment by way of definition:

What you describe in your above quoted is usually referred to as:
'qualified non-dualism'.

And btw, regardless of religious tradition and including most of the major ones,
that particular orientation is held by an overwhelming majority of people at the present time.

~ J

There are many traditions, and they are all a mosaic of the divine spark? I don't know what qualified non-dualism is in essence, but it matters not.

The spirit I can.. feel.. in the love of the Christ is real. For me, but dogma is not my path.

What does nondualism point towards, that I am God?

Who has the power to hold that space.

And better yet, how do you hold it.

Thinking about it, or "becoming love" as the Christ presented in life.

My devotion is grounded in love, what is nonduality grounded in, the mind?

Is nonduality not a devotion to God within?

It could also pass as another devotion, but love is eternal ground.

Hence the Christ was with us without the need for devotion and dogma.

Rather understanding...

Still_Waters
08-08-2017, 02:10 PM
My favourite quote from The Bible:

"Before Abraham was, I AM" - cannot get any more non-dual than that.

That is one of my favorites as well.

Another favorite is: "I and the Father are one and the same" with the addendum that "The Father is greater than I".

Iamit
09-08-2017, 10:38 PM
What I don't like is shadowy, The Christ still remains "perfected in love" transcending our personal rational lights..

Nonduality is pointing towards personal lights?

Nonduality means no possibility if disconnection from Oneness no matter what state one may be in, Christian or what may be regarded as shadowy.

Jyotir
10-08-2017, 01:15 PM
There are many traditions, and they are all a mosaic of the divine spark? I don't know what qualified non-dualism is in essence, but it matters not.

The spirit I can.. feel.. in the love of the Christ is real. For me, but dogma is not my path.

What does nondualism point towards, that I am God?

Who has the power to hold that space.

And better yet, how do you hold it.

Thinking about it, or "becoming love" as the Christ presented in life.

My devotion is grounded in love, what is nonduality grounded in, the mind?

Is nonduality not a devotion to God within?

It could also pass as another devotion, but love is eternal ground.

Hence the Christ was with us without the need for devotion and dogma.

Rather understanding…

Hi Nowayout,


There are many traditions, and they are all a mosaic of the divine spark?
Yes, of course…they would have to be so….because there is no essential difference between the spark and the mosaic. Of course, there may be functional variations of cognition in that regard ;-) which is the differential origin of the appearance of a ‘mosaic’…. and why…
I don't know what qualified non-dualism is in essence, but it matters not.It does matter, precisely because of your aforementioned mosaic. And you do know what qualified non-dualism is, because the original comment of yours that I responded to was a definition of sorts:

“Perhaps God is outside of creation but also within it.”
That’s the classic qualified non-dualism.

Again, it matters, because in human culture at this time, that is the overwhelmingly predominant orientation of people throughout the world regardless of their religious tradition or practice. So, even though there is a ‘mosaic’ of sorts, it is comprised of a prevalent size and color of ‘tile’. In other words, there is a very significant commonality in terms of cognition/conceptualization of reality and consequently how life is approached in spiritual terms, which significantly is common to adherents of varying traditions and different religions regardless. Therefore, even if on the surface the conventional wisdom indicates, ‘this’ is a different religion from ‘that’, etc., the orientation to reality within that ‘different religion’, in terms of what constitutes the broader metaphysical basis, is still similar.

In terms of qualified non-dualism, what that means is that Immanence is considered ‘more so’, e.g., more immanent ‘outside’ of the Created/Creation, i.e. ‘ground’, but also, simultaneously available secondarily within it (derivative of ground). This is usually assumed, because of all the ‘sinning’, pain and suffering, ignorance and imperfection so blatantly obvious within the Creation, e.g., even if God/ the Highest is in all of that, He/It can’t really BE all That, because God is perfect, etc., and therefore God really must somehow be intrinsically limited within the Creation.

This is the direct result of a perceived-as-concrete ‘maya’, false surface appearance, ignorant objective cognition, etc. vs. a deeper subjective cognition of True Self, True Identity, i.e., true Monism, One God, One Self - regardless of apparent form.

Why that matters, is because as a result of that implicit (presumed) orientation, most human beings regard the ‘really real’ God to be external to the Created/Creation, and therefore external to themselves, although ‘somewhat’ and ‘somehow’ available - - indirectly - - within it.

As a result, and importantly so, they don’t see their own lives and the evolution of consciousness AS their lives, directly to be that same God, since the main qualification of ‘qualified non-dualism’ is that very distinction of elevated status outside of the Creation, but not direct identity within the Creation…regardless of status in becoming.

Your own philosophical position as indicated herein, in your own words, apparently derives from that orientation. That’s how pervasive it is, how implicitly exclusive, and at the same time as a result, perhaps naively claiming it is ‘not dogmatic’. And I’ll use your own words to explain…

The spirit I can.. feel.. in the love of the Christ is real.
Good for you....

For me, but dogma is not my path.Admirable if true.
However (and even though this thread is about the Christ, but here we have also split into a discussion on qualified non-dualism, which your words imply), unless and until one can authentically feel the same with, in, and from the Buddha, Krishna, etc. as well - that ‘love’ is perhaps more arbitrarily exclusive than one might personally recognize, and therefore implicitly more dogmatic than one might publicly acknowledge. Therefore…

“…dogma is not my path.” is not a credible boast. Or, it’s simply credible in its limiting dogmatism…by a subtle prejudice.

On the other hand…..

What does nondualism point towards, that I am God?
Yes.

Who has the power to hold that space. (Assuming that sentence represents a poorly punctuated question….)

Uhhhh…the answer would be…… God.

Who or What else could?

And better yet, how do you hold it. (Again, assuming that’s actually a question…..) Thinking about it, or "becoming love" as the Christ presented in life. (another question?)

How do I hold it?
How do you hold it?
Why does anyone need to ‘hold it‘, objectively…when you ARE it?

That’s the crucial non-dual proposition as distinct from the qualified non-dual position.

Since in non-dualism all Identity is One, the capacity to do so, to “hold it” would be commensurate with the native capacity of an All-conscious omnipresent One Being….God. Therefore God is simply the same Identity in any another form, status, poise, aspect, etc., as the individuated being experiencing God- awareness in and through that being (or becoming)… as Being. It’s still-and-all the same God. So if there is any ‘holding’, God is the holder, the holding, and the held, One and all. Or, one can only become love if one already is Love.

After all, all-consciousness is all-power.
What God Visions or Wills is certainly within God’s capacity, by virtue of that omnipotence. It only appears as deficient or partial in a Universe where this innate power and perfection is apparently limited, veiled and emergent - or - becoming/realizing what it essentially already is in Being, and therefore appears to be partial and incomplete, and importantly therefore: conditional, or….qualified.

It’s just different forms of the same essential One Self, as compassionate dispensation and example (presentation) - of giving - but also as the same Self emerging from ignorance in distress, in need of that compassion - receiving. Becoming is the other side of the coin of Being; they are essentially the SAME. However….

Love in the physical is easier to understand in terms of a qualified dynamic of giver and receiver, suffering and compassion, need and dispensation, etc., and therein is the ‘qualification’, the modified orientation as distinct from a purely subjective static Being in which that Love is a Self-amorous Delight, which is perhaps too far removed, too abstract, and seen as unfathomable and unattainable accordingly. But the example of a God-man dispensing Love is so approachable. That’s why…

My devotion is grounded in love,... in the qualified conception, where ‘ground’ is assumed superior to what issues from it or what is serves.

what is nonduality grounded in, the mind? Non-duality by definition has to be grounded in the same ground, because it is the ground, and whatever issues from it.

Devotion is inherently dualistic since there must be an implied ‘separation’ between the lover and the Beloved, or the need and fulfillment, or the ignorant suffering and the compassionate blessing, or the chosen Ideal and the dedicated aspirant, etc.

If anything, bhakti (devotion) is functionally dualistic, even if that doesn’t require the mind, which is exclusively dualistic. That is why non-dualism (when authentic, and by definition) cannot be derived from mind, but has to be grounded by in and through the same ‘ground’ that it inherently IS, which includes mind. All instrumental forms are in fact the same essence in a different variant status - not simply derivative of ‘ground’ (which is the qualified view).

Is nonduality not a devotion to God within? It is an experiential awareness of God within and God without as the one and same One Being. . So in that sense, non-duality could be the basis of devotion to God ‘without’, through service to the divine in and through the Creation (such as with karma yoga).

As in (getting back to the OP), “I and the Father are One”. When Jesus Christ healed people or preached to them, did he do so condescendingly and arrogantly - or because he saw them humbly as God, and therefore part and parcel of Himself?

In the strict sense, or as usually considered in non-duality, it would not be ‘devotion’ per se, because of the previous comment - but these are just words. It would be primarily an awareness - knowing as Self, of Identity as unitary, One, regardless of superficial form appearance. And love or devotion might be similarly a dynamic aspect of That One Identity. But that means whether within or without, static or dynamic, that qualification would be rendered by an authentic awareness of said Identity as simply different aspects or statuses of the One Self. In other words, any devotion is so, precisely because all phenomenal forms are directly experienced as aspects of One Self, God.

It could also pass as another devotion, but love is eternal ground. Then there is no conflict. One Being, One Love. In whatever status.
However, the very utilization of the term ‘ground’ implies the qualified non-dual orientation. Because there is an implied preference of ‘ground’ as distinct from what issues from it - - as derivative and not IDENTICAL.

Hence the Christ was with us without the need for devotion and dogma. Hence the Christ - a preeminent exemplar of devotion - is still with us and never left us. But if only we knew that….functionally - as dynamic awareness on a permanent moment-to-moment basis. Then we wouldn’t describe it in the past tense, especially if it is ‘eternal’.

God as Love, as the ‘eternal ground’ also has a dynamic form in the qualified non-dual conception, whereby in the Creation there is need and dispensation which is characterized as love and devotion, or compassion, etc., seen in the Creation as issuing forth from that ‘ground’ - but not as essentially the same as the ground and its various phenomenal forms. Hence, as ‘qualified’, ground is somehow distinct from what issues from it. In true Monism, they are one and the same Identity.

As far as "dogma" goes, and for me it’s not very far - these dodgy references are a bit obscure and need some clarification as to what in this discussion constitutes that dogma and how it is relevant, if at all - but especially if that dogma is surreptitiously (and ironically) construed as some form of, “not dogmatic”.

~ J

dazza095
12-08-2017, 08:39 AM
I'm a newbie, and somewhat computer illiterate. Am struggling to communicate on this site. Am still waiting for a reply from someone. I have a huge interest in nonduality. My shelves are littered with books on the subject. Not that I'm a know it all , I am open to new ideas. I've spent most my life meditating in search of my Self or the Seer. I've known for some time that the Seer and seen are one and the same thing with no dividing line between them.
Life is a big mystery , and I believe that the difficulty of it all lies in its obviousness. Most human beings are unaware of the obvious because it's obvious. When we watch a good film on tv we get lost in the contents and totally forget about the screen, even though the screen is the fundamental truth behind the whole process, we get involved with the pictures in ignorance of the screen. In life we get lost in the world in ignorance of the Self or Seer. I'm curious, is this post of any interest to anyone on this site? I'm sure you've heard it all before, but it could be the start of a interesting conversation.

Moondance
13-08-2017, 10:45 AM
I'm a newbie, and somewhat computer illiterate. Am struggling to communicate on this site. Am still waiting for a reply from someone. I have a huge interest in nonduality. My shelves are littered with books on the subject. Not that I'm a know it all , I am open to new ideas. I've spent most my life meditating in search of my Self or the Seer. I've known for some time that the Seer and seen are one and the same thing with no dividing line between them.
Life is a big mystery , and I believe that the difficulty of it all lies in its obviousness. Most human beings are unaware of the obvious because it's obvious. When we watch a good film on tv we get lost in the contents and totally forget about the screen, even though the screen is the fundamental truth behind the whole process, we get involved with the pictures in ignorance of the screen. In life we get lost in the world in ignorance of the Self or Seer. I'm curious, is this post of any interest to anyone on this site? I'm sure you've heard it all before, but it could be the start of a interesting conversation.

Hello dazza095, welcome to the forum.

Yes, life is mysterious. And I agree that the obviousness of this (THIS) is overlooked. You say that the seer and the seen are one - but then talk of being in ignorance of the seer as if the seer is somehow a separate something that needs to be found. Is there really a seer (noun) as such?

BTW. Perhaps you might consider starting this conversation as a new thread since this one is still ongoing as a quite specific topic (nondual teachings of Christ.)

Nowayout
18-08-2017, 08:08 PM
Hey Jyotir

Yes.. a question needs a question mark.:D

God is the question... am I the answer??

There, learning all about you as we go... the subtleties of life.. ?

Nowayout
18-08-2017, 08:22 PM
A spark needs matter to burn
Fire and heat is like love
Love needs a heart
Burn on....

Heart of mine
With all that is divine!

No question mark there....:wink:

Jyotir
19-08-2017, 01:07 PM
Maybe SF needs a bhakti forum? :rolleyes:

Nowayout
19-08-2017, 06:33 PM
Well... trying to lump the Christ into Nonduality is like mixing good wine with water:wink: .

But hey, we all need to eat and drink.

The first shall be last and the last shall be first. Is it an attitude thing or shedding light on the line up to the fountain?

Jyotir
20-08-2017, 03:54 PM
Well... trying to lump the Christ into Nonduality is like mixing good wine with water:wink: .

But hey, we all need to eat and drink.

The first shall be last and the last shall be first. Is it an attitude thing or shedding light on the line up to the fountain?

Yeh, Nowayout,

It's a bit of a stretch in a non-dual forum, but still valid.

Besides, all those tannins do eventually come out in the wash.

Meanwhile...It's not so much an 'attitude thing', as it is a relative point-of-view thing,
including as you mention, the classic inventory management strategies FILO, LIFO.
In the Buddhist forum we could talk about FIFO ;-)


~ J

Nowayout
20-08-2017, 05:57 PM
A relative point of view, that's what we all are.

The thing that speaks to me around the Christ, I was raised this way but anyway, there is an important "divinity" in the Christ. Risen from the dead, if you can bend around that, and alive, acting in Christians through the Holy Spirit.

It's not just about devotion...Jesus came back from the dead man.

Where does no duality go with that?

Personally, I wonder too about the risen Christ, keeping an open mind. Nothing against non-duality, but to be fair to all players lets be a little aware of the true faith of Christians.

A Christian would not bend a knee to nonduality, but why pray anyway.

Jyotir
20-08-2017, 06:14 PM
Where non-duality and other traditions go with that is that we all come back from the dead - just not consciously. Jesus was the example for all, of our essential immortality.

A key point I'll continue to make is that if non-dualists are 'true to form' (haha), they would have to acknowledge that the 2 approaches are coming from the same Source in different ways. It is the same Holy Spirit that non-dualists realize.

Jesus (as was Krishna, Buddha) was the exemplar of Source in and through a specific means (as Source) at a specific time for human beings at a specific evolutionary necessity. That is the very definition of 'avatar'.

~ J

Nowayout
20-08-2017, 06:31 PM
Where non-duality and other traditions go with that is that we all come back from the dead - just not consciously.
~ J


Please tell me how we experience life non-consciously?

I guess you mean consciously we return but not conscious of what we are now?

That could be... in my view of it all. But I don't know, can't remember past lives. Do we have a soul that continues within nonduality concepts?

Jyotir
22-08-2017, 03:23 PM
Hi Nowayout,

We incarnate into a conditional ignorance, which is why we don't remember past lives, or why we do not have command of our immortal nature (as Jesus's resurrection demonstrated). And importantly, it is why we are not consciously aware of our true Identity, as was Jesus, the Buddha, Krishna, etc.

These figures are significant in that regard. They were all human examples of conscious God-Identity. There is essentially nothing else - and that is the message of non-duality. It's just that we are instrumentally, functionally ignorant of this...as a condition of incarnation, Earthly life, the physical. But that is also the blessingful opportunity. The soul otoh, is fully aware of that Identity and serves the eventual realization of it in the individual, but 'we' normally do not identify with our soul (even if we may aspire to it in fits and starts), - but rather, with the false surface appearances of an objectively 'separated'/apparently divided world/nature, selfish desires, etc., which is basically the origin of all pain and suffering and conflict.

Fortunately, as all the great Teachers have instructed, and demonstrated by example, this conditional ignorance is transcend-able, precisely because of that very Identity which is unconditional and inseparable. That's why - especially in non-dual discussion, there is lots of talk about "becoming what you already are", etc., e.g. realizing, or 'enlightenment' as a full, permanent awareness of True Self, God-Self, Being, etc.

Jesus did teach this (because He embodied it), amongst other things, but all of those 'other things' stem from that central truth of Being - "I and my Father are One", essentially One Self.

~ J

Nowayout
23-08-2017, 01:48 AM
OK.. Thanks for the reply. I know and have read a little about this too.

Gods blessings on one and all as "the one" awakens in you. My path is before me.

Peace...

ajay00
23-08-2017, 07:01 PM
‘I and the Father are one’ (John 10:30)

'Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.'John 14:10


Both these are teachings of Jesus with a nondual flavour. :happy11:

Ariaecheflame
28-08-2017, 10:13 PM
I feel like what I take from Buddhist teachings and what I take from the energy of Christs teachings work to compliment each other.

It is important on the path of wisdom to take the non - dual teachings from - say Buddhism as a way to assist with the pursuit of wholeness and intergration. This is important both from a spiritual as well as a psychological perspective.

Where Christ consciousness comes in for me though - is that I am able to gain a deeper understanding of the interplay of duality and the nature of creation right from the big bang to pretty much everything in between.

I just feel like this allows me to take the next step in greater understanding than say - the teachings of non duality could offer me... BUT IN saying that... My heart mind connection work well with these teachings -

And seems I am quite creative and scientifically minded, I find the metaphors within Christianity particularly to be quite fascinating in their story telling and symbology as they are very relatable to many scientific theories today...

Nowayout
29-08-2017, 01:55 AM
Christian Story telling?

That remains to be revealed...:smile:

As Heaven and Hell continues within the human condition.

Ariaecheflame
29-08-2017, 03:43 AM
haha... yeh well I too was stumped by that phrasing :rolleyes: - my brain was trying to convey a vision but was stuck on the words - in the end I just gave up and wrote the not so ideal phrase!

I had all these visions of bible stories flash back from childhood from my less than traditional church upbringing - I think at the time they were the cause of much boredom lol - now days though they pop in every now and then offering wisdom or something.
Ah well - As for heaven and hell - I'll just do my best to enjoy all of it all in all its strangeness - no harm in trying anyway. lol.
Rinse - repeat.

Joe Mc
29-08-2017, 09:49 AM
I just read a series of booklets on this topic and I found it resonating with me. I like a lot of what the gnostic gospels teach and this author tied other belief paths into his interpretations as well (Zen Buddhism for example). Anyway, if anyone is interested, it is a great topic to research. :) Blessed be.

I've had an interesting thought about Jesus surrounding the apparent contradictory things that he said. Even when I was young I heard teachers at school allude to this and when I got older I came across the same idea is various places. I'm not going to list these contradictions as I'm not that familiar with them but I believe there are quite a few. What I want to say is that Jesus used language even in the NT, let alone the gnostic gospels which present even more of these koan like parables etc., in a way which attempted to confute and coral the linear thinking mind into a leap or realisation that, this type of thinking, is not the be all and end all of everything. It seems sad then, in this light, that alot of his so called followers have really shackled themselves to the apparent even superficial language of the bible, nobody can be saved etc.

I think NT is a great story and you couldn't failed to be moved by the story itself of Jesus but to hang your hat onto the language as a pure and damning diabolical exhortation is as I say sad in itself. So sayings ascribed to Jesus which seem contradictory are not so at all but yet the mainstream Christian pedagogy in education etc. will tell you it its so. What they are saying is that within our linguistic, cultural, religious framework etc. Jesus' pithy sayings are not congruent with how we have to see him as a teacher (of non duality) ?

sakredkow
04-09-2017, 05:22 AM
advaita (non dualism) was throughly defeated in India over a thousand years ago by Ramanuja of the dvaita school. The problems with non-dualism are many and it can be deconstructed as a valid ontological system by questioning the numerous fallacies it generates. For example:

1. If this world is unreal what is the purpose for its creation? If the perfectly replete Self (Brahman) is truly perfectly replete, then what is the need of a world of names and forms which are temporary?

2. If Brahman is prefect and replete, how then can an entity perfect and replete by covered by avidya ignorance?

3. The "oneness" of advaitic monism flies in the face of direct experience and renders all cognition useless. We experience duality in this world, for example where there is hatred, there must be love, where there is up, there must be down etc. But advaita doctrine simply sweeps these very real experiences under the carpet labelling them as unreal.

namaste

iamthat
04-09-2017, 06:11 AM
Regarding advaita, the simple fact is that duality and non-duality co-exist.

The nature of form is duality. For those who only know form, then duality is their reality.

The nature of formlessness is non-duality. Those who identify with formlessness know that the duality of form is pervaded throughout by the non-duality of formlessness. This is pure Being, or as some would call it, the Self.

If we do not know formlessness then advaita may make little sense. When we realise the formlessness of our own nature then advaita makes perfect sense.

Peace.

Moondance
05-09-2017, 03:09 PM
advaita (non dualism) was throughly defeated in India over a thousand years ago by Ramanuja of the dvaita school. The problems with non-dualism are many and it can be deconstructed as a valid ontological system by questioning the numerous fallacies it generates. For example:

1. If this world is unreal what is the purpose for its creation? If the perfectly replete Self (Brahman) is truly perfectly replete, then what is the need of a world of names and forms which are temporary?

2. If Brahman is prefect and replete, how then can an entity perfect and replete by covered by avidya ignorance?

3. The "oneness" of advaitic monism flies in the face of direct experience and renders all cognition useless. We experience duality in this world, for example where there is hatred, there must be love, where there is up, there must be down etc. But advaita doctrine simply sweeps these very real experiences under the carpet labelling them as unreal.

namaste

Hello sakredkow

Nonduality (with a small ’n’) simply means not-two/not multiple or one without a second. People (understandably) often assume that nonduality and advaita are synonyms. And although advaita certainly is nonduality, nonduality is not necessarily advaita.

This sense/understanding points to the fact that even now as you read this there is nothing other than an ‘ineffable source’ or Oneness at play. That there can be separation or otherness from this is a delusion.

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t distinctions and contrasts (as is another sense of the word duality.) After nondual realisation those relative ‘dualities’ remain in place.

Jyotir
05-09-2017, 05:39 PM
Hello sakredkow

People (understandably) often assume that nonduality and advaita are synonyms. And although advaita certainly is nonduality, nonduality is not necessarily advaita.

This sense/understanding points to the fact that even now as you read this there is nothing other than an ‘ineffable source’ or Oneness at play. That there can be separation or otherness from this is a delusion.

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t distinctions and contrasts (as is another sense of the word duality.) After nondual realisation those relative ‘dualities’ remain in place.

Exactly, Moondance,

And this is something the hard-core (especially so-called Neo-Advaitins) often fail to recognize, or adamantly (and incorrectly) reject. That the delusion or illusion is that of 'separation' within existence, from God, etc., as there is only One Self. However...

That Oneness has full essential inalienable equality both within Being AND becoming, which are simply differentiations (not separation) e.g., different aspects or statuses of that One Self experienced variously.


~ J

Shivani Devi
06-09-2017, 10:14 AM
Namaste.

I have always been confused that if something is 'non-dual' then it also must have that which is 'dual' to make it 'non-dual' and thus 'non-dual' is still 'dual'.

I have also been confused with the "I am That" assuming "That" does not exist apart from the "I" and even the relationship between an "I" and a "That" is a dual one.

I have been totally confused by the saguna aspect of a divine consciousness, represented in manifest form, when if people are praying to it, or even what it represents, are not they merely praying to themselves?

Who is to say the saguna representation of Brahman has all of the attributes ascribed to it anyway? I mean how can form represent the formless in any aspect whatsoever?

I adopted the path of qualified monism in the attempt to stop my mind thinking about all this too much, but it still doesn't fill in all the holes in the theory.

I'm still trying to work out why all the non-dual schools of Tantric Kashmir Shaivite philosophy still have pictures of a Puranic Shiva adorning their walls and saying "Shivoham" when I am thinking "I can't see chandra in their hair...mother Ganga either..you don't have Neelkantha...etc etc.

Thus, I am like "what's the story, morning glory?"

Shivani Devi
06-09-2017, 10:36 AM
advaita (non dualism) was throughly defeated in India over a thousand years ago by Ramanuja of the dvaita school. The problems with non-dualism are many and it can be deconstructed as a valid ontological system by questioning the numerous fallacies it generates. For example:

1. If this world is unreal what is the purpose for its creation? If the perfectly replete Self (Brahman) is truly perfectly replete, then what is the need of a world of names and forms which are temporary?

2. If Brahman is prefect and replete, how then can an entity perfect and replete by covered by avidya ignorance?

3. The "oneness" of advaitic monism flies in the face of direct experience and renders all cognition useless. We experience duality in this world, for example where there is hatred, there must be love, where there is up, there must be down etc. But advaita doctrine simply sweeps these very real experiences under the carpet labelling them as unreal.

namastePlease refer to my reply above, but I am totally with you on this!

You are obviously a Gaudiya Vaishnava, whilst I am a Shaivite Bhakta, but if there's anything that both of us have in common, it is the concept of Vishishtadvaita:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishishtadvaita

One day, I decided to fully tear apart the Tantraloka of Abhinavagupta when I was bored and had nothing else to do and posted it on here somewhere...ah..here it is:

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1606569&postcount=4

I have also read Gaudapadacharya's Karika on the Mandukya Upanishad and studied it in regards to all this.

For a very long time I was an Advaita Vedantin, going 'Neti Neti' as Sruti says..that got me absolutely nowhere, until I decided to turn all that around and go "Iti Iti".

This is something that only you will be able to understand on here though, as it all flies over everybody else's head because they don't have the same background in Sanskrit terms and Vedic philosophy that we share...and it's nice to finally have somebody on SF who could possibly relate to me in this way. :)

Shivani Devi
06-09-2017, 12:57 PM
Qualified Monism assumes the position of "I am also That", and not "I am That" exclusively.

Jiva/Atman is Brahman but Chit is Parabrahman.

http://www.speakingtree.in/blog/difference-between-brahman-parabrahman

Any association between Self and Brahman, is still within the confines of the Saguna awareness or the whole association between the Manomaya Kosha and the Anandamaya Kosha. It is the realisation of one's inherent divinity leading to the state of Samprajnata Samadhi.

When the association dissolves into Laya, the Self becomes totally lost in Brahman and there is nothing Brahman is not i.e. Parabrahman. It means to transcend the awareness of Jiva and Atman, but fully resting within Paramatman and achieving Satchitananda. The pancha kosha are also transcended in the process and one attains moksha or Nirvikalpa Samadhi.

The way I have explained it quite simply before is to just say "God is Brahman and I am Brahman but I am not God" and the Gaudiya Vaishnavas also put it quite nicely "I am only 'part and parcel' of God".

Like stated before, Ishwara has two characteristics; the indwelling soul which is known to the devotee and the devotee which is known to Ishwara. Parabrahman is therefore simultaneously inclusive and exclusive and this knowledge is gleaned through direct experience and not just 'theoryoga'.

In the Vedas, Ishwara is said to be both Sat (existing) and Asat (non-existing).

It is even stated in the Bhagavad Gita:

kleśo ’dhika-taras teṣām
avyaktāsakta-cetasām
avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaṁ
dehavadbhir avāpyate

Translation:

For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.

- Bhagavad Gita 12.5

iti Shivam.

Jyotir
06-09-2017, 01:20 PM
Namaste.

I have always been confused that if something is 'non-dual' then it also must have that which is 'dual' to make it 'non-dual' and thus 'non-dual' is still 'dual'.

I have also been confused with the "I am That" assuming "That" does not exist apart from the "I" and even the relationship between an "I" and a "That" is a dual one.

I have been totally confused by the saguna aspect of a divine consciousness, represented in manifest form, when if people are praying to it, or even what it represents, are not they merely praying to themselves?

Who is to say the saguna representation of Brahman has all of the attributes ascribed to it anyway? I mean how can form represent the formless in any aspect whatsoever?

I adopted the path of qualified monism in the attempt to stop my mind thinking about all this too much, but it still doesn't fill in all the holes in the theory.

I'm still trying to work out why all the non-dual schools of Tantric Kashmir Shaivite philosophy still have pictures of a Puranic Shiva adorning their walls and saying "Shivoham" when I am thinking "I can't see chandra in their hair...mother Ganga either..you don't have Neelkantha...etc etc.

Thus, I am like "what's the story, morning glory?"

Hi Necromancer,


I have always been confused that if something is 'non-dual' then it also must have that which is 'dual' to make it 'non-dual' and thus 'non-dual' is still 'dual'. Non-dual (Transcendent) precedes Creation of dual. Dual is a conditional aspect of Existence. The Transcendent is not dependent on the conditional, but the reverse is true. ("I pervade the entire Creation with a fragment of Myself, and yet I remain", etc.)

However, since All is One, any formal conditional differentiation of Self may realize Self because it essentially is That Self. This is why the physical is so significant - but especially a self-conscious human life is even more so.

I have also been confused with the "I am That" assuming "That" does not exist apart from the "I" and even the relationship between an "I" and a "That" is a dual one. “I” is the differentiated individual. “That” is the undifferentiated/Transcendent”. See previous

I have been totally confused by the saguna aspect of a divine consciousness, represented in manifest form, when if people are praying to it, or even what it represents, are not they merely praying to themselves? Yes, but those doing the praying are usually those who have not realized who they are. Therefore they are praying to a
‘form’-al representation of the 'ideal' (realized) status e.g., the fully conscious Self, as represented by ______________which they have not as yet realized as instruments, even though they are ‘That’ ideal in essence. Therefore praying to oneself, who has yet not realized Self, could be a bit confusing since ignorance justmight be present in the unrealized being as a means of cognition thereby creating the confusion of what constitutes 'self'. This is why there is yogic efficacy in so-called ideal forms/chosen ideal/nishtha, etc.

Who is to say the saguna representation of Brahman has all of the attributes ascribed to it anyway? I mean how can form represent the formless in any aspect whatsoever? Brahman sez, because Brahman is. Since All is One how could it NOT be the case? Therefore form not only represents the formless, it IS essentially the formless. This is the basis of Realization.

I adopted the path of qualified monism in the attempt to stop my mind thinking about all this too much, but it still doesn't fill in all the holes in the theory. Then you didn’t stop it.

I'm still trying to work out why all the non-dual schools of Tantric Kashmir Shaivite philosophy still have pictures of a Puranic Shiva adorning their walls and saying "Shivoham" when I am thinking "I can't see chandra in their hair...mother Ganga either..you don't have Neelkantha...etc etc. Maybe you are not yet realized.

Thus, I am like "what's the story, morning glory?"
In the plant kingdom, a flower/blossom represents realization. In the human kingdom we have far less flowers, a notable rarity of blooms, but an increasing number of buds.

I suggest reading Sri Aurobindo's “Synthesis of Yoga”, and in particular, Part 2, “The Yoga of Integral Knowledge” which deals specifically with Jnana and non-dual issues; also many chapters in “The Life Divine” which is also recommended.


~ J

Shivani Devi
06-09-2017, 01:48 PM
Hi Necromancer,


Non-dual (Transcendent) precedes Creation of dual. Dual is a conditional aspect of Existence. The Transcendent is not dependent on the conditional, but the reverse is true. ("I pervade the entire Creation with a fragment of Myself, and yet I remain", etc.)

However, since All is One, any formal conditional differentiation of Self may realize Self because it essentially is That Self. This is why the physical is so significant - but especially a self-conscious human life is even more so.

“I” is the differentiated individual. “That” is the undifferentiated/Transcendent”. See previous

Yes, but those doing the praying are usually those who have not realized who they are. Therefore they are praying to a
‘form’-al representation of the 'ideal' (realized) status e.g., the fully conscious Self, as represented by ______________which they have not as yet realized as instruments, even though they are ‘That’ ideal in essence. Therefore praying to oneself, who has yet not realized Self, could be a bit confusing since ignorance justmight be present in the unrealized being as a means of cognition thereby creating the confusion of what constitutes 'self'. This is why there is yogic efficacy in so-called ideal forms/chosen ideal/nishtha, etc.

Brahman sez, because Brahman is. Since All is One how could it NOT be the case? Therefore form not only represents the formless, it IS essentially the formless. This is the basis of Realization.

Then you didn’t stop it.

Maybe you are not yet realized.


In the plant kingdom, a flower/blossom represents realization. In the human kingdom we have far less flowers, a notable rarity of blooms, but an increasing number of buds.

I suggest reading Sri Aurobindo's “Synthesis of Yoga”, and in particular, Part 2, “The Yoga of Integral Knowledge” which deals specifically with Jnana and non-dual issues; also many chapters in “The Life Divine” which is also recommended.


~ J Thank you so much for that most wise and indepth reply.

So, to put it all in terms of reference I can grasp, Purusha is Purusha, Prakriti is Prakriti but Purusha + Prakriti is still Purusha.

I think it's just a case of my mind chasing its own tail in regards to bhakti and my own experiences.

I can fully get it from my own perspective of awareness, whether I am 'realised' or not, but trying to get it from an external awareness, or the philosophy outside of it, is where I become unstuck.

For example and in regards, I have experienced that state in which neither the "I" nor "Shiva" exists during intense Dhyan and there is no awareness of being whatsoever, there is only that feeling of unconditional love, peace and joy...but when I am not totally lost in that experience, Shiva still exists and what "I" am is just eclipsed by love for Shiva.

However, to one who is not a bhakti yogi, I cannot see how it relates whatsoever...but then again, I probably wasn't meant to. :redface:

That being said, thank you for those references and I shall get around to reading them at my earliest convenience.

Also, when I type in light blue, that is my 'Higher Self' coming through to explain things to me through me and so I am getting it now.

Shivani Devi
06-09-2017, 02:49 PM
Please allow me to also tackle that post in question.

Try thinking backwards, Necro and it will make more sense then:

I have always been confused that if something is 'non-dual' then it also must have that which is 'dual' to make it 'non-dual' and thus 'non-dual' is still 'dual'.
If something is 'dual', it must also have that which is 'non-dual' to make it 'dual' and therefore 'dual' is still 'non-dual'.

I have also been confused with the "I am That" assuming "That" does not exist apart from the "I" and even the relationship between an "I" and a "That" is a dual one.
It's just word-play semantics. If something exists as being what it truly is, then it cannot be any other way. If it confuses you less, you can just drop "That" and stick with "I AM".

I have been totally confused by the saguna aspect of a divine consciousness, represented in manifest form, when if people are praying to it, or even what it represents, are not they merely praying to themselves?
We have been through this many times before! The imminent and transcendent are one, yet there is still an imminent and transcendent. To make it easier, the differentiated self is no different to God, but God also exists apart from it. So you are praying to the indwelling spirit within and the external spirit without.

Who is to say the saguna representation of Brahman has all of the attributes ascribed to it anyway? I mean how can form represent the formless in any aspect whatsoever?
So, please tell me why you worship Lord Shiva as the manifest form of Brahman again? :p

I adopted the path of qualified monism in the attempt to stop my mind thinking about all this too much, but it still doesn't fill in all the holes in the theory.
Maybe you should just embrace the path of dvaita totally then. It's like you are putting each of your feet into two boats here. If you can realise Brahman through dvaita that's good isn't it? You're just complicating things.

I'm still trying to work out why all the non-dual schools of Tantric Kashmir Shaivite philosophy still have pictures of a Puranic Shiva adorning their walls and saying "Shivoham" when I am thinking "I can't see chandra in their hair...mother Ganga either..you don't have Neelkantha...etc etc.
That would only be known to those of that school...which you are not, but you have already answered that question yourself anyway. I have also told you about the mountain that was there...then it was not there...then it was and that whole thing about 'before nirvana, chop wood, carry water...after nirvana, chop wood, carry water'. Things still exist how they are and have always been, despite the realisation of it.

Thus, I am like "what's the story, morning glory?"
The story is that you are trying to rationalise personal experiences which cannot be rationalised by comparing them to conflicting ideals and philosophies that do nothing to explain it and it only ends up confusing you.

Yes, you can read Jyotir's offerings, or re-read this one again and practice it! It's been 35 years since you did:

https://www.thoughtco.com/lord-siva-and-his-worship-1769550

How am I doing, Jyotir?

Amilius777
04-10-2017, 06:13 AM
Something to add.

There is a deep truth to Jesus allowing people to call him "the Son of God"

He never went around calling himself the "son of God' but the Gospel writers proclaimed him to be. His apostles saw him as "the Christ, the son of the living God" and he accepted it but told them never to go around spreading that info.

Mainly because the whole "Christ, Son of God" was more of a job office, a prophetic title, a vocational occupation that one would fulfill due to the prophecies in the Old Testament. It wasn't that Jesus was a "demigod" or a supernatural being pretending to be human which is how later Christianity describes him to this day.

But in John's Gospel there is some insight that John brings to the table. Jesus probably didn't say half of the things in any of the Gospels, but John has Jesus speaking a certain way to give us a message. John's insights really get to the heart of Christ.

John mentions- "the only begotten Son", "God so LOVED the world", God is Love, The Father sent the Son, if you don't have "the Son" you don't have Life, if you don't believe in the Son you are condemned.

Do you understand what is so significant about all these phrases? John is not saying Jesus is literally a small Yahweh sent by a bigger Yahweh. John is saying that if you don't "believe" which means practice in the ancient world "the Son" you don't have life. And what did Jesus practice?

He saw HIMSELF in all walks of Life. This means Jesus loved himself so much which enabled him to love everyone , and love God. It is a mathematical equation. God's Love for every soul is that of "AN ONLY BEGOTTEN" Son, you are that precious to the Divine, and that same heritage, origin, DNA is in all the people you encounter in life. How nondual is that? Jesus saw himself in everyone he ever encountered.

This is why in the Roman Catholic tradition a mystic once said "help everyone you know, you never know if they are Jesus in disguise". That means you don't know the person next to you. You can not comprehend who that person was to you in a past life or who they really are, so see everyone as Christ.

Love your enemies...means you have no enemies.

blossomingtree
15-10-2017, 04:55 AM
Great post Amilius!

Nowayout
30-10-2017, 01:10 AM
And perhaps Jesus was God in the flesh. But what is God to us where it matters?

Love, Universal love.

Within there we find joy, peace, kindness, wisdom, depth, and eternal life.

Do you want it.?

Do you truly want eternal life?

Love is hard work.

And to come back from the dead,.......... that's my Jesus.

Biblically proclaimed and misunderstood... they wanted a lion and they got a lamb.... till the Christ returns.

I will rise again too is my hope, in the Christ!

But consciousness is eternal.

Let us let our hearts shine... forever.